CultureFeasthttp://www.culturefeast.com
Fresh culture. Served daily. ish.Tue, 31 Mar 2015 02:17:16 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Here’s Why Twitter Shouldn’t Succumb to Anonymoushttp://www.culturefeast.com/anonymous-pressures-twitter-to-suspend-isis-supporters/
http://www.culturefeast.com/anonymous-pressures-twitter-to-suspend-isis-supporters/#respondTue, 17 Mar 2015 11:50:44 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4374As a distant appreciator of Anonymous’ work, I typically have little to complain about. After all, they have brought a measure of justice to a world where red tape allows the guilty to remain free. But we’ve crossed the threshhold here with this latest #OpISIS campaign. According to n4gm.com, This time the hacker team has […]

]]>As a distant appreciator of Anonymous’ work, I typically have little to complain about. After all, they have brought a measure of justice to a world where red tape allows the guilty to remain free.

But we’ve crossed the threshhold here with this latest #OpISIS campaign. According to n4gm.com,

This time the hacker team has been teaming up with GhostSec and Ctrlsec (two other hacker teams) and released 9,200 Twitter account names as a part of #OpISIS…The @xrsone, the Twitter account that has released the account names is highly encouraging people to share these accounts to apply pressure on Twitter to remove or suspend them as soon as possible

While I’m willing to consider the possible need for vigilante gunslinger social justice on occasion, there are boundaries. And to be frank, these boundaries are moral and logical boundaries which agree with my own personal worldview.

Real World vs Hollywood

You’ve seen in the movies where the vigilante (Dark Knight, The Punisher, V for Vendetta, Man on Fire, Dirty Harry) does the dirty work the police and judicial system can’t or won’t do. And we cheer them on despite their penchant for breaking the laws of the land as they execute their vicious brand of justice.

It feels good to support these characters because, while watching a movie, we have the ability to see behind-the-scenes how evil the bad guys are. In the real world, you don’t get to pan over to the bad guy’s hideout and see all the secret things they’re planning. You only see results without explanations.

In the real world, we have to interpret much less data than superheroes and vigilantes get. We owe it to ourselves to avoid getting in the habit of judging people based on accusations and apparent connections.

The Cost of Social Vigilantism Is Too High

Do I think these 9,200 people support ISIS? No clue. But I don’t have to know. They are using a free tool that shouldn’t discriminate against groups that the masses accuse of terrorism any more than it might someday be asked to discriminate against anti-vaxxers, homeschoolers, or people living off the grid.

For now, it’s safe to assume that Twitter will maintain a professional attitude toward both Anonymous and the 9,200 accused. Just let the reality sink in that hate crimes are no longer accomplished with sticks and clubs. They’re digital, and the consequences that would result from digital vigilante-ism if you’re wrong is unthinkable.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/anonymous-pressures-twitter-to-suspend-isis-supporters/feed/0An Atheist, a Buddhist, and a Christian Walk Into a Barhttp://www.culturefeast.com/atheist-buddhist-christian-in-bar/
http://www.culturefeast.com/atheist-buddhist-christian-in-bar/#respondMon, 16 Mar 2015 12:50:25 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4364Carter: Religious Liberals and Religious Conservatives both have an apocalyptic narrative. It just differs in the how and why. John: Lets hear it. Carter: Religious Conservative believs man is so sinful and bad, that eventually God will have to judge the earth and destroy everything. The righteous will be whisked up to heaven and the […]

]]>Carter: Religious Liberals and Religious Conservatives both have an apocalyptic narrative. It just differs in the how and why.

John: Lets hear it.

Carter: Religious Conservative believs man is so sinful and bad, that eventually God will have to judge the earth and destroy everything. The righteous will be whisked up to heaven and the wicked will be tortured forever in hell.

Liberal Conservative believes man is so dumb and self-centered, that he will use up all the resources polluting and destroying the earth, and/or killing his own kind in endless conflicts. Everything will die.

John: So what does that make me since I agree with both?

Carter: Depressed? I guess I have a positive outlook. I don’t believe in a God that will come back and destroy and torture people. I also am hopeful that human beings will learn to both control and co-exist with their environment. I have no guarantees, but I’m hopeful. I “have faith”.

Sam: Once you learn how evolution works and you actually investigate the evidences and witness them first hand (bacteria and virii evolve much faster than humans, we can witness it happening), you then realize two things:

1) Humans are not sinners. We are a product of millions of years of evolution. Everything that Christians refer to as sinful nature is either something arbitrary that cavemen were trying to find a way to control OR a primal instinct that our brains still have intact.

2) In several million years there will be no more humans. Like the Dinosaurs and Neanderthals behind us, humans will disappear as we know them, replaced by yet a new product of evolution.

John: No thanks, Sam. I’ve been evangelized by plenty of evolutionists already.

And yet I’m not depressed, Carter. Go figure.

Carter: I’m glad you’re not depressed. For me personally, I found the Fundamentalist Christian Narrative of millions of people burning in hell extremely depressing. How could I as a Christian be happy being saved knowing strangers, friends and family are being tortured? Similarly, I find the liberal ecological doomsday narrative depressing. My hope is that we’ll find a middle way out of that scenario, by conservation and technology.

In any case, though I disagree with your religion, I can be glad it doesn’t “depress you” and that you have found a way to be happy and compassionate through it.

John: I think you have misunderstood my belief system. I’ll summarize with this: I hold my eschatology loosely because the future is not written about with the same level of factual certainty and detail as records of present and past activity. Visions of the future are described the best way possible by a guy nearly 2,000 years ago who would have had no frame of reference for what 2015 would look like or 3015 or whenever the events are to take place.

Depression is probably not the word you are looking for. I do experience sadness when I think of people missing the opportunity to know God. I also agree with Scripture that says “The heavens declare the glory of God.” I believe it when leading scientists admit that their work in science re-confirms the obvious conclusion that there is a master creator.

I think all of Creation points to its Creator, and if we are really ready to set aside our judgments and offenses toward what our reality would indicate about a god who doesn’t prevent pain and suffering, we can find him when we search.

I am far more optimistic or positive when I look to the future than almost every Christian I’ve ever met. Most Christians I know have no value for ecological preservation or ecological endeavors because “It’s all going to burn anyway.”

As I see it, God spoke worlds, stars, and all living things into existence. This planet is a masterpiece. God loves this planet, unlike most who claim to follow Him. I love this planet, and I take seriously the commission to humanity to govern and steward it.

Rather than turning to scientific mutations of life, I turn to a mixture of ancient and modern approaches to not only foster “sustainable systems” but to take the next step forward, which is “Regenerative Agriculture”. We are making great strides in the realm of regenerative agriculture (see the work of regrarians, silvopasturing, perennial agriculture, permaculture, food forestry, and more).

Sam: I‘m going to give a little harsher answer than Carter so forgive me. But I find it to be quite offensive that someone believes they are going to live in eternal bliss while the majority of every person that ever lives is simultaneously being tortured – for infinity! Any God that would do such a thing is not only evil, but undeserving of any worship.

And any human that would OK with simultaneously sitting on their “heavenly beach drinking heavenly margaritas while the angels sing” as their friends and relatives are being tortured is not a good person. Rather they are sick and twisted. And I haven’t even touched on the morality of an infinite punishment for a finite crime.

Carter:You are definitely walking to the beat of a different drum, John, and I envy and respect your approach to agriculture and the environment. I also know its not for me. Thank God (if he exists) for folks like you, looking to make the least impact on the earth and to help realize a sustainable civilization. I also respect that you don’t claim to have all the answers in regards to the future. That too is very refreshing.

On the God and Creation thing, many of the same groups of scientists that claim to believe in God, also still believe in evolution and natural selection including Francis Collins, an evangelical christian and leader in the study of the human genome.

Scientists also tell us that the earth is not the center of the universe, that it and our sun will someday die as Michael mentioned above, that natural selection over millions of years through animal death and suffering are what created us and that galaxies regularly collide and wipe out entire star systems.

Much of the universe, both here on earth and in the greater cosmos, seems random, chaotic and not catered to a concern for human well being. Letting go of our judgments about suffering, as you put it, is just impossible for some of us. The debate between theists and atheists to me seems like a “glass half empty vs glass half full” sort of scenario.

The theists see connection, order and design, the atheists see chaos, disorder and accident. I see both. My answer? “Does not compute!” So I don’t know what to think.

But, Sam, you used to believe all that. Were you sick and twisted at the time? Are your friends and relatives that still believe those things? Was it a simple manner of just letting go of all those silly superstitions, or a journey you alone had to make before you came to those conclusions?

Sam: Good call out Carter. I have to say a little of both. I have found religion to be an “information virus” of the mind. So a simple answer would be. Yes. I was sick and twisted, but I was unaware that I was so.

Actually, you bring up a good moral question. In law, ignorance of the law is not a defense. What about morality, religion, etc? Just because you’re unaware of the damage your religion is doing to others does that make you innocent?

John: I’m sorry that the idea of God is so offensive and painful, Sam. I would defend Him if I could but truth be told He is still such a mystery to me. I’ve barely scratched the surface of His ways.

The best I can offer comes from my own marriage. I want my wife to do things the way I think they should be done. But I love her and I do not force her to obey, submit, or agree. The value of our intimacy is demonstrated by her in manipulated choice to know me. To love me. To spend time with me when she could do anything else instead.

She can reject me. She can hurt me. She can hurt others. I don’t attempt to control her for the sake of other people who are affected by her. So if she chooses to be selfish and arrogant and self-important, she may do a lot of damage to me and others I love.

I could never speak of Gods love if he forced me to do what he wants. And if he doesn’t force me to comply, I am free to hurt others. And if he were to always stop me from hurting others, he would be controlling what I’m allowed to choose. And if he controls what I do, I can never come to Him freely and experience his love.

It’s not a happy go lucky answer, but it’s what I have.

Sam: But you didn’t tell her “you can choose to love me out of your own free will” and then say “but if you ‘choose’ not to I will lock you in the basement of our home in a torture chamber forever”. You wouldn’t do that because it is wrong and immoral. And because you wouldn’t you just proved you’re more moral than Yahweh.

John:I understand that perspective. I see the prospect of “eternal damnation” much differently. I don’t believe that the Americanized version of hell is actually biblical. The word “hell” was chosen during translation from the original language.

I may not know much, but my view of eternity, or the tiny speck I can imagine, revolves around the majesty and pleasure of the uncreated One. He is splendor and glory and beauty and light personified. Glory and beauty emanate from him, and to encounter him at the judgment seat and to be judged as one who has not accepted the blood payment for one’s sin means one’s sin has not been atoned for. And sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God.

There is no imperfection in His being. And so, from my perspective, “damnation” has less to do with flames and Dante-like torture as it does have to do with perfect memory and separation from the most comforting, loving, beautiful being in the universe which you have the opportunity to encounter at judgment. The torment of separation may not be an affliction at all, but rather the absence of everything you always dreamed of, never had, suddenly experienced, and now have to exist without.

I wouldn’t sentence my spouse to physical torture. But if she betrayed me, at some point there could be permanent separation. She would never again know the comfort of my presence and the security of our covenant relationship being uninterrupted.

One last thought… Since God is light, being cast out into utter darkness doesn’t imply a place of torment prepared for them so much as it means being placed somewhere/somehow (time/space may not be what I understand now) beyond the experience of His presence. That’s not a fully developed thought. It’s just where I am right now.

I don’t claim to have eternity wrapped up in a nice little theological package. I simply don’t. There are two things I don’t do that many of my fellow Christians do: Hold to a tightly formed escatology and interpret dreams for other people. Both are couched in symbolism, and symbolism requires interpretation. I am not an experienced judge of interpreters, so I don’t go there as a general rule.

Carter, I will be vulnerable enough to tell you this: I assumed for the first 10-12 years of my faith that Jesus would return in my lifetime within the next 5-20 years. I believed that. And while I believed this, I felt no responsibility for this Earth. I tried not to litter because it was against the law and I was trying to honor God-ordained authority, but I wasn’t compelled to do or feel anything because why invest in something that will go away so soon? It’s like getting a free pass to be a slob.

Then something shifted. I can’t explain the process, but I came to believe that I have a responsibility to plan for even 7 generations, and be the man who paves the way for land, food, opportunity, family culture, standards, ethics, and leadership in our community. I hold that role. My great great great great great grandchildren shouldn’t have to start their lives as clueless as I did.

So I have assumed the responsibility to begin a new culture in our historical line. We will learn how to be useful people with useful skills and not depend on corporations for our food. We will work to become not only recession-proof, but hubs of generosity and creativity in our community. If/when times are tough, our neighbors can come to us for help because we have been wise to invest in a cutting-edge knowledge of perennial agricultural systems and regenerative landscapes.

That is my vision. It’s lofty. But I set my sights high.

Carter: John, your vision of heaven/hell is definitely more humane than many Christians. I myself toyed with similar ideas when I was a Christian reading stuff like M Scott Peck and C S Lewis. The only problem I had with it at the time was so many other Christians, historically and modern day believed in the literal torture part, and Jesus himself used similar language in multiple places in the gospel. Therefore, I felt the torture scenario was more biblical, though I desperately wanted to believe in the other.

However, even the other scenario smacks of unfairness. Why should someone be excluded from the community of love in the afterlife, because of what they believe or don’t now? Given how many religions are out there and other worldviews like humanism and atheism, it seems exceedingly hard and unlikely to “earn” salvation and much more of an accident of birth than by design. Why do some people get ready access to forgiveness and others don’t if none of us deserve it at all?

For myself at least, I would love to know of a perfect God and to make my acquaintance with him. I love God, at the very least as a symbol of perfection and love and your description of him is beautiful. But again, for me at least, this image doesn’t compute with the Christian idea that God can’t be in the presence of sin, that he has to (“has to?”) reject people if they don’t find this One True Way to forgiveness, that he has no tolerance for our messiness, waywardness and capacity for Evil, especially since he created us in the first place.

In my mind, the default attitude of God would be that of forgiveness and compassion, of healing people and curing of them, rather than an exception to the rule of Damnation for All for a tiny elect that got the Right Answer. I have also on many many occasions tried to reach out to God, because hey, maybe my finite mind is just too stupid to understand this whole sin and redemption thing and maybe God could enlighten me.

I didn’t get an answer. And simply throwing my hands in the air and just accepting it al on faith didn’t work, because you can do that with anything you find illogical or immoral. Again, don’t take this as a judgement on you or your journey. You have come a long way and your answers won’t be my answers and that’s fine.

Anyway, my spirituality such as it is, isn’t about trying to Get the Right Answer(TM) anymore, or become Enlightened, or Get Saved, or anything else along those lines. I’ve mostly given up finding the answer or perfection and instead am trying to teach myself to Surrender. Surrender to the things I can’t control, surrender having my way over others, surrender to the questions I can’t ever answer even though the questions are still super interesting to me.

Not that I’m just going to lay down and die or give up on life or trying to be a better person…to the contrary. We spend so much time trying to judge or fix things or figure things out all the damned time (see what i did there) that we forget to rest and be compassionate to ourselves and others. I believe, thats part of why we are in the technological mess we are in now. It took me a long time to come to this view and I have a ways to go.

Sam, in answer to your question about who is innocent, I would say that since there’s no sin and no free will (at least, not in the Christian sense) we are all in some sense, innocent. In another sense, we do have a moral obligation to others and to the truth. I know these two points of view sound contradictory but I don’t know how else to express it. And no, while the law may not give exceptions for ignorance or intent to those that break it, I do not thing the same applies to ethics and morality.

The fact is that we are all prisoners of our experience. The KKK member may be hateful and destructive and we should rightfully call him out on his bullshit. But in another sense, we should affirm his humanity, that he is just another confused and bewildered human being like the rest of us, lost in a sea of ideas.

I also sympathize with those that have strong religious beliefs that I disagree with, because I know first hand, how compelling those can be especially when everyone you respect and care about share those same beliefs. So I try to be patient with even the Jehovah’s Witness that show up at my door this morning or the fundamentalist Christian trying to convert me because I know, “there but for the grace of God go I” har har.

I know these are well meaning, but confused people that are concerned for my soul. I know while their views are destructive at times, their intent is not. I also know that screaming at them, literally or figuratively, about how stupid they are to believe these things, does nothing. I can share, gently, what I think I know, and try to enlighten them a bit, but I can’t cram my non-theism down their throats any more then when I was a Christian I could cram the Bible down the throats of my atheist or muslims neighbors.

Conscience can’t be forced. Beliefs cannot be purged using Atheist Logic Anti-Virus. The best we can do IMHO is reach across the aisle and have respectful dialogue with those we disagree with, not drag them kicking and screaming across the aisle to our side. They have to make the journey on their own, wherever they are going. They only have to be stopped if they are explicitly breaking the law or hurting people in tangible, visible ways.

So the faith healer that doesn’t let there kid go to a doctor should be prosecuted, the same as I would, for neglect. But if my in-laws believe that praying for me will help, I’m not going to call them stupid or ignorant. Go for it. If they ask why I don’t believe in prayer, I’ll be glad to explain my point of view in a gentle, respectful fashion, but again I’m not going to bash them over the head with my Humanism.

I’m done being an angry agnostic. I want to be at peace with myself and my neighbor. I’ll be glad to discuss or even debate theology, philosophy, politics, whatever, but I’m tired of getting angry at people for not living up to my supposed enlightened standard and I don’t like it when they call me stupid or sinful, so I should return the favor.

Sam: I’m not done being angry. I don’t have anything to apologize for. I’m not sorry for leaving “the faith” and I don’t have respect for anyone who thinks less of me for being an atheist. That may sound mean but I’ve had one too many religious person tell me what a heathen I am. And the Christians who give me religious books like “the case for faith” but won’t agree to read an atheist book of my choice seal the deal. They’re not interested in truth.

They’re interested in continuing the BS that is their religious doctrine that they won’t even consider is irrational and illogical. I don’t discount that I too was part of their organization for more than two decades. But I still don’t believe ignorance of truth absolves a person from judgement.

John: Carter, you always impress me with your approach. I count myself privileged to know you. Sam, you seem passionate about your beliefs. I respect passion. The alternative is not very interesting.

Just so anyone reading this is clear, I have never personally asked Sam or Carter to read any books. It is true that I wouldn’t likely ever read a book about atheism because it wouldn’t be an efficient use of my time. While I don’t have a systematic theology of sorts, I have a relationship with God, and because of that, reading about why He doesn’t exist would be like reading a book about why my wife isn’t real.

I have two shelves worth of books to read that will further me in my passionate pursuits already.

Sam: I used to feel the same way as you. Before I made the commitment to challenge every belief I hold dear. That’s the only way to find truth. The second you become unwilling to challenge a truth is the second you’ve lost truth.

John: I understand what you mean, Sam. I have challenged my beliefs. That’s why I no longer go around touting a stout and heady theology that is based solely on heresay. I know a few things about God, and I leave plenty of room for mystery.

It would be mere conjecture for you to assume that a person with strong beliefs hasn’t thoroughly challenged their beliefs already. By all means, examine your beliefs and put them through a rigorous testing ground. But when that is done, and your faith is solid, it is meaningless to spend the rest of one’s life asking if random book XYZ or teacher ABC might hold the key to tearing down one’s strong faith.

My goal isn’t to live in a constant state of guessing whether there’s a possible thought or idea or statement out there that might somehow cause my world to come crashing down. My goal is to start off with the basics and to grow into more mature aspects. From milk to meat, as they say.

Sam: That only works if “the basics” are valid. The more a lie is told the more we believe it is true. As much as it is said, and as many people that believe it doesn’t change that it is a lie. The truth is available only to those who are willing to question everything they’ve been taught and to relentlessly challenge their assumptions.

John: Sam, I’m more than willing to carry on a civil conversation, but it does me no good to respond further at this point. I don’t need you to agree with me. I’m not threatened by what you believe. I appreciate having this conversation with you and Carter.

Sam: Hmm. I find your response quite interesting. You’re not threatened, but yet “it does you no good to respond further.” I’m also unsure how my challenge to question is uncivil.

You know its quite interesting. I have had several Christian friends ask me to read books. I’ve even had people mail me anonymously “The Case for Faith”. I’ve told each and every one of these people that I would read their book, if and only if they would read a book of my choosing and then talk about what we read afterwards.

So far I am at a 100% decline rate on my offer. One person going so far is to say “What in the world makes you think I would want to read some atheist book?” As if they can’t see how arrogant their statement is, and that I might feel the same way about their book. It also solidifies what I’ve said all throughout this thread.

It’s a one way street with Christians (it seems). They’re not interested in truth or learning, if they were they’d accept my challenge. Quite the opposite, they’re afraid they might find out they have been wrong all along, and that is a scary proposition. I know, I went through it.

I was a Christian for 30 years before I finally started questioning. It was during a period where I decided to actually read the Bible, cover to cover. I always tell my Christian friends that the fastest path to Atheism is to read the Bible cover to cover.

Carter:I certainly don’t think you need to apologize for becoming an atheist. As far as respecting those that think of less of us for being atheists or agnostics, there’s a thin line there. Certainly, you don’t have to sit there and listen to someone who is being uncivil or rude, as they berate you for not belonging to the True Faith(TM).

Sometimes, you just have to quit the discussion and I have done that from time to time. But I do respect people’s humanity and personal dignity. I respect everyone’s humanity, or try to.

I was angry for a long time so I understand where you are coming from. I still get angry from time to time, when people badmouth homosexuals or demonize skeptics like us as if we’re trying to destroy society. When I analyzed this anger, I realized from time to time, that it had almost the same motivation behind it as when I was an angry fundamentalist christian.

Part of it was a bit of fear and insecurity, because the people still in the faith I had left were a threat to me with their beliefs. Trying to change them meant that my beliefs would be more justified if I “won” the argument or shamed them somehow. Part of it was self-righteous anger towards them.

I had found the new Truth, the truth of my skepticism and humanist worldview, and they were deceived and evil people who had to be redeemed. When you look at all this, I was repeating the same behavior I had but merely substituting a Skeptic narrative for the previous Christian one. The contents of my beliefs had changed, but the mode of my believing and behaving had not. I believe this happens with most people, whether coming to Christianity from another or no religion, or converting out of a religion to atheism or agnosticism.

I also believe this is why folks coin the term “fundamentalist atheists” because the M.O. of the atheist has not changed from when he or she was a fundamentalist Christian, only the contents. Fundamentalist atheists aren’t a real thing (they obviously aren’t fundamentalist in the religious sense) but they are merely atheists who are acting the same way that religious fundamentalists do: angry, self-righteous, judgmental, uncritical of their own tribe’s flaws, and demanding that others conform to their worldview. Our psychological patterns are simply hard to change.

It wasn’t like I was doing this all the time, every day, but I seemed to be repeating the same cycle over and over whenever I got into these conversations. The anger frankly, was annoying and painful. I got frustrated over and over that people just couldn’t see the light and repeatedly got defensive, angry and would attack me.

I also noticed other atheists and agnostics acting just as bad or as work in their arguments with Christians. I finally resolved to stop repeating this cycle and have been trying ever since. I don’t always succeed. But I do try to focus on the positive instead of the negative. I wanted to be one of the good guys.

We still have to make judgments about people and their beliefs…this is human. But if someone is not hurting others, I try not to be too judgmental if they believe things that I frankly think are a bit crazy. I also try not to be judgmental because as someone who is still open to new evidence, I might eventually change my mind again.

I changed my mind in the past, who is to say I might not in the future? I hold my skepticism tentatively, as I do all of my beliefs, until new evidence shows up.

So while the Truth is important to me and I want to spread what little truth i’ve learned, people are more important to me. Compassion is more important to me. I’d rather connect with as many people as possible and engage with them with respect and compassion.

Which is easier when I remember that I was once in their shoes and it was not a simple manner of just waking up and deciding to question or abandon all my religious beliefs. I have also found that this mode of conversation are frankly, more effective. I got a homophobic christian to admit that he was being homophobic and prejudicial. I have better feelings about myself and other people. I don’t hide my agnosticism but I don’t (usually) try to cram it down others throats.

There’s more that I could say about this, about how meeting liberal, non-fundie, accepting Christians through the UU Church helped, how my Zen meditation and community helped me understand spiritual experience without a belief in a deity, yet also understanding the compelling nature of those experiences for those that DO believe in the supernatural, my understanding of compassion through Buddhist thought, yada yada yada. Those are stories for another time.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/atheist-buddhist-christian-in-bar/feed/0Civilized Man Has A Problemhttp://www.culturefeast.com/civilized-man-has-a-problem/
http://www.culturefeast.com/civilized-man-has-a-problem/#respondWed, 11 Mar 2015 17:35:59 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4343When you pledge allegiance to a civilized institution, you enter into an agreement to abide by rules that are not and could never be predicated on relationship. These rules are by necessity less human because they cannot account for individuality and a myriad of unique scenarios. Social interactions founded upon organic relationships are by nature […]

]]>When you pledge allegiance to a civilized institution, you enter into an agreement to abide by rules that are not and could never be predicated on relationship. These rules are by necessity less human because they cannot account for individuality and a myriad of unique scenarios.

Social interactions founded upon organic relationships are by nature more chaotic, messy, complicated, and real. This is the conundrum of civilized man: constantly seeking to sterilize the the Nature out of human experience.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/civilized-man-has-a-problem/feed/0Detroit Man Walks 21 Miles For Work And the System Failed?http://www.culturefeast.com/detroit-man-walks-21-miles-work-means-system-failed/
http://www.culturefeast.com/detroit-man-walks-21-miles-work-means-system-failed/#commentsMon, 09 Feb 2015 12:52:19 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4225One man in Detroit walks 21 miles each day to get to work, from his home in Detroit to a factory in Rochester Hills, a suburb. Twenty one miles? Think about that. At a decent gait of 5 mph, that’s a little more than 4 hours of walking. Imagine he’s at work at least 9 hours. […]

]]>One man in Detroit walks 21 miles each day to get to work, from his home in Detroit to a factory in Rochester Hills, a suburb. Twenty one miles? Think about that. At a decent gait of 5 mph, that’s a little more than 4 hours of walking. Imagine he’s at work at least 9 hours. Add four hours of walking. That’s 13 hours a day. Not to mention how ridiculously tired he must be each night after walking through rough parts of Detroit in all sorts of freezing winter weather.

The reaction has been appropriately positive. Robertson was already something of a role model for his co-workers, and readers responded to the story generously, donating $70,000 and counting to help him get a new car. That’s great for Robertson. But this isn’t a feel-good story—it’s a story about policy failures, structural economic obstacles, and about what it takes to keep working despite those challenges. Robertson is no doubt deserving, but it’ll take larger changes to help other people who face similar struggles.

I’m sorry, what? It’s not a feel-good story? It’s a story about policy failures? I might as well say that this Atlantic article isn’t a story about policy failures. It’s an example of how biased opinion in “reporting” attempts to take a fascinating story about one man’s honorable work ethic and twist it into a piece about the need for more infrastructure.

This is what’s wrong with “the Media.” This isn’t news anymore. This is a soapbox to whine about whatever agendas the author and corporate media company hope to push forward.

Let’s think through this real quick.

Walk through this with me. The man, James Robertson, lives in Detroit. He chooses to work in a factory in a nearby suburb. His privately owned vehicle dies, and he can’t afford to replace it. So he chooses to walk the 21 mile round trip to get to work each day. I want this man speaking at my local high school!

Don’t tell me about how the jobs aren’t where the people who need them are. Show me people like Mr. Robertson who are willing to do what it takes to take care of their families. Whether that’s walking across town or inventing a hyper localized business plan that solves a uniquely local problem, we need to honor people with initiative to get things done. That is what this country was built upon.

“But if only the city had better infrastructure, people like James Robertson wouldn’t be faced with the difficult decision to walk 21 miles a day just to work!”

We Need to Inspire Again

Seriously. People like James Robertson solve problems and get things done. People who aren’t like James Robertson sit on the stoop all day and watch the world pass them by. Or they sell drugs. Or they drink. Or they do any number of unproductive things instead of doing what it takes.

If we had MORE feel-good stories, we could inspire more people to make the hard choices like James Robertson. If we wanted to be agents of social change, we could tell better stories. And not taint the great stories we already have.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/detroit-man-walks-21-miles-work-means-system-failed/feed/5Why Writing Your Story Is So Importanthttp://www.culturefeast.com/behind-writing/
http://www.culturefeast.com/behind-writing/#respondFri, 06 Feb 2015 17:23:37 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4190I’ve already explained my reason for writing, journaling, and blogging my story. But something was missing. I didn’t hit the mark. I talked about some things I hope to accomplish. But I think there is a greater mission. At the core, I think we ALL should write at least part of our stories and pass them down to […]

]]>I’ve already explained my reason for writing, journaling, and blogging my story. But something was missing. I didn’t hit the mark. I talked about some things I hope to accomplish. But I think there is a greater mission. At the core, I think we ALL should write at least part of our stories and pass them down to future generations.

If you like following chains of thoughts, this is for you. It’s a bit of an odd story, and it begins with a terrifyingly graphic movie.

I was seventeen, living in an apartment with two friends. Brad Pitt’s new movie Se7en hit the theaters. I had no clue what I was in for.

I’ll spare you the film’s gritty details. Kevin Spacey plays this psycopath who has this secret room in his lair full of notebooks. They’re all journals in which he’s written all the details of his thoughts and experiences. And Morgan Freeman’s character marvels at the sheer number of notebooks, saying,

No dates. Placed on the shelves in no discernible order. Just his mind poured out on paper.

That was all it took. I was hooked. A chain reaction of thoughts set off in my brain that couldn’t be stopped. This man’s mind “poured out on paper.” Nothing lost. Everything preserved. It didn’t matter to me that he was evil, insane, and mentally unstable. He had accomplished something that made me envious. He hadn’t lost his thoughts to the ether.

How many questions had I asked without receiving an answer? How many intuitions had I forgotten? How many inspirations? No one would ever know again on this side of eternity.

Act on Inspiration, No Matter How Unlikely

That night, I began journaling. I was a frantic ball of teenage hopes, insecurities and emotional wounds, but I began recording every thought as it came to me. I knew that I could never capture everything, but I wanted to keep as much as I possibly could.

Twenty years later, Brad Pitt still looks amazing and I have about thirty journals full of ideas, questions, and concerns. My pace has slowed quite a bit and I have no illusions of recording every thought. My writing has seasoned over time, though the writing style itself could probably use some polish. But they’re my words. They contain my pursuit of the answers and ideas I’ve needed most.

Whether or not my grandchildren and great grandchildren ever choose to read them, I hope to give them the opportunity to know these three things:

Where they come from

What it means to be an adult in this crazy world

They are not alone

As each child faces difficult questions for the first time, we often have no one beside us, talking us through the painful scrutiny of meaning and consequence. I had no one to talk with, and I believed my thoughts were mine alone. It was very isolating. How many years were wasted and opportunities lost because I didn’t know what I didn’t know?

Just this week, I was reading the memoirs of a local Franklin, TN man. He was asked to speak publicly about what he saw in WWII at Dachau, which he had never been able to bring himself to talk about. One of the survivors told him,

You know, when you die you are going to take all you know with you. Nobody will ever be able to know what you saw.

The same is true for what we learn. For our experiences. We don’t have to share them. But what we fail to share is lost forever. And as a man who has desperately searched for historical references and stories regarding the land our family now occupies, I can tell you that there is a sense of tragic loss when an old man can’t remember a name or a story. That story is lost forever.

But it didn’t have to be.

We Owe Our Grandchildren Something

This is the WHY behind my journaling and writing. The idea of Regret is a powerful motivator. What will you regret not sharing when it’s all said and done? What stories will never live on to inform and empower a new generation of sons and daughters?

Our children’s children deserve the opportunity to not face the world blindly like we have.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/behind-writing/feed/0A Cinematic Feast: “Welcome to the Rileys” (2010)http://www.culturefeast.com/a-cinematic-feast-%e2%80%9cwelcome-to-the-rileys%e2%80%9d-2010/
http://www.culturefeast.com/a-cinematic-feast-%e2%80%9cwelcome-to-the-rileys%e2%80%9d-2010/#respondTue, 29 Mar 2011 15:54:53 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4120Here is a tiny little film that barely earned $320,000 in total box-office receipts world-wide and screened only in 11 movie theaters when it was released. It’s one of those films that was tossed straight into the home-video bin. But my god… what quality, what super writing, directing, and acting are tucked away in this […]

]]>Here is a tiny little film that barely earned $320,000 in total box-office receipts world-wide and screened only in 11 movie theaters when it was released. It’s one of those films that was tossed straight into the home-video bin.

But my god… what quality, what super writing, directing, and acting are tucked away in this miniscule corner of the movie world! The quality of this adult drama is nothing less than astounding.

First off, let’s praise the world-class acting muscle brought in by James Gandolfini (Doug Riley) of the SOPRANOS fame. That TV-series has seared itself permanently into my brain cells and will live with me as long as I’m around. And the number one reason why I loved that show so much was Gandolfini. The number one reason why I was mesmerized with the RILEYS is again JG. Bless you, sir.

But Melissa Leo as Doug’s depressed wife Lois and Kristen Stewart as a teenage hooker also excel beyond description. Why I haven’t heard the names of these amazing actors before; I have no idea. But I’m sure we’ll hear about them frequently in the future, especially Stewart given the fact that she is still so young and in the early years of her career. May it be a long one. I think she’ll fill in the shoes of Marcia Gay Harden nicely. Stewart is another Natalie Portman or Michelle Williams in the making.

(WARNING: some plot points revealed ahead…)

The story: Doug is a plumbing materials wholesaler in Indianapolis living in a middle-class neighborhood with his wife Lois. Despite the appearances, both are depressed deep down since they’ve lost their 15-year old only daughter in a traffic accident years earlier.

Doug, perhaps also squeezed by a typical middle-age crisis, starts to look around for a diversion, for a way to forget his pain. His wife Lois is house-ridden and clinically depressed 24-7. Thus it does not take long for Doug to get off track during an industry convention down in New Orleans.

Enter Mallory, the Big Easy teenage pole-dancer and prostitute who is just about the same age as Rileys’ deceased daughter. There’s obviously a father-daughter attraction there on Doug’s part while Mallory tries to treat Doug as yet another John off the street. Yet when Doug declares his decision to move in with Mallory while refusing any sex for payment, we are as puzzled as both Mallory and Lois are with Doug’s true intentions.

At times I thought the RILEYS might deteriorate into the overworked formula of MY FAIR LADY (even PRETTY WOMAN): will Doug try to make a lady out of Mallory? Yes and no, but Mallory is no “lady” for sure. She is not even a “woman” yet. She is a foul-mouthed wild beast.

The story takes a sharp turn at this point with Lois’s decision to pack up her suitcase, get into the family Cadillac, and after a few nervous mishaps, hit the road to… New Orleans! Lois has her epiphany and will not leave Doug on his own down in the netherworld of New Orleans.

Act Three of this fascinating story gets layered with all three major characters interacting with each other to redeem themselves and to find salvation in ways that befit them.

The ending is both logical and delicate. Writer Ken Hixon and director Jake Scott (nephew of the great Tony Scott) really love their characters and they treat them with respect, patience, and dignity even when they are down in the pits, smeared with the ugliness of the world.

The RILEYS leaves us emotionally exhausted but yet also strangely charged up for the possibilities ahead. Hope is beating like a drum in the inner chambers of this film.

R-rated and too hard for the kids. But if you’d like to spend meaningful two hours in front of your TV set curled up with your spouse or significant other, RILEYS is not a bad choice at all. As a matter of fact, until you see it, it should be the only choice.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/a-cinematic-feast-%e2%80%9cwelcome-to-the-rileys%e2%80%9d-2010/feed/0The American (2010) – A Cold Story Served Well Like Chilled Caviarhttp://www.culturefeast.com/the-american-2010-a-cold-story-served-well-like-chilled-caviar/
http://www.culturefeast.com/the-american-2010-a-cold-story-served-well-like-chilled-caviar/#respondThu, 24 Mar 2011 13:43:59 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4107THE AMERICAN is a philosophical exercise on what constitutes “The Reality.” Can we tell what’s going on inside a man by just watching what’s going on outside of him? Probably that’s the deeper focus that we shouldn’t miss when watching THE AMERICAN.

]]>This is a cold movie. No, it’s a FREEZING cold movie! (WARNING: some story spoilers ahead…)

The main character is steel cold. It opens up with a literally cold snowy scene. The warmest human relationship is a one-night stand at an Italian bordello (at least until Act 3).

SIDEBAR: There was another movie with a similar name that I watched years ago: THE UGLY AMERICAN (1963) with Marlon Brando. That was a warm, pulsing affair. Many upset characters. Here, people don’t even get upset. They just shoot one another.

There are so many things we don’t know about the story line…

Who is this guy Jack (George Clooney), a ferocious killing machine? We know zip about his history and background. He is just a muscle holding a weapon, even in his sleep.

Is he a freelancer? We don’t know.

Is he CIA? We don’t know.

He only admits to being an “American.” That’s all we know.

There’s another thing we get to know by Act 2: Jack is not as good as he’s used to be — at least that’s what his “boss” (?) or “handler” (?) is saying over the phone.

The film opens in the wilds of Sweden, with one of those unforgettable “everything is lovely — oops!” scenes… Three people die, one totally innocent… Is Jack losing his touch? And more importantly: why are they (who are “they”?) trying to kill Jack? We know nothing. It’s an enigma wrapped inside a mystery.

Jack takes refuge in a small mountain village in Italy, trying to throw off his Swedish avengers. And for the most of the movie we see him do two things: prepare a weapon that a client orders, and eliminate those who followed him all the way to this peaceful little picturesque village suspended in its medieval slumber.

Oh, and a third thing: Jack meets Clara (Violante Placido), a girl-next-door looker he meets at a whore house (do medieval villages have whore houses? – I doubt it). Then they become lovers – almost, since as I said before, even love is served on ice in this movie.

I’ve never seen George Clooney this paranoid in any of his films. In one memorable picnic scene, I swear to god his face DARKENS with fear as we watch… I have no idea how he did that but chalk it up for a veteran actor’s bag of tricks.

The end is a Classical Greek Tragedy kind of ending. The hero… so close to the sun… so close to salvation and redemption…

Without giving the end away, let me tell you this much: Jack is still emancipated from the cold and bloody bonds of his worldly misdeeds but in an aesthetical and metaphorical way, thanks to the Director Anton Corbijn.

So, why did I love this movie? One word – directing. Corbijn is a true student of Hitchcock. Those open-area wide-angle shots with no soundtrack are truly menacing and reminded me of similar scenes in FRENZY (1972), shall we say.

Second reason, again related to directing, is the way Corbijn approaches the whole idea of “narrative” and “story.” If with a “story” what you understand is a series of moments each following the other seamlessly like the wagons of a train, you are in for an education.

In THE AMERICAN there are many moments, many scenes that you have no idea where they’re leading to. And that’s the delight of this cold thriller.

This is one movie where the director is saying “we are not playing with your rules of what constitutes a story – welcome to my house of broken moments and nothing’s-happening transitions.”

In that sense, THE AMERICAN is a philosophical exercise on what constitutes “The Reality.” Can we tell what’s going on inside a man by just watching what’s going on outside of him? Probably that’s the deeper focus that we shouldn’t miss when watching THE AMERICAN.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/the-american-2010-a-cold-story-served-well-like-chilled-caviar/feed/0Growing Up with Harold Bloomhttp://www.culturefeast.com/growing-up-with-harold-bloom/
http://www.culturefeast.com/growing-up-with-harold-bloom/#respondSun, 20 Feb 2011 19:47:51 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4092Going through my library this weekend, I came across an old copy of Harold Bloom’s classic, The Western Canon. When it was published, Bloom’s book was (and remains today) controversial among educators and academics for its unshrinking advocacy of intellectual elitism and its defense of Western canonical literature. That is, the European literature that most […]

Going through my library this weekend, I came across an old copy of Harold Bloom’s classic, The Western Canon.

When it was published, Bloom’s book was (and remains today) controversial among educators and academics for its unshrinking advocacy of intellectual elitism and its defense of Western canonical literature. That is, the European literature that most people who went to American public high schools encountered at some point, such as Shakespeare.

His work was a fitting find. I moved to my new apartment some months ago, yet the floor is still strewn with boxes full of books, most of which I still haven’t read. For Bloom (and indeed, his is but one opinion), the fundamental need for a canon of literature stems from our lack of time: “Who reads must choose, since there is literally not enough time to read everything, even if one does nothing but read.”

There’s a little more to this than just assembly line efficiency. Even if we did nothing but read, doing any activity always involves a choice, and choices always involve the question “what should we do?” To spend our time is ethical.

To a twenty-something like myself, it also occurs to me that to spend our time is to grow up, though growing isn’t limited to young people. Sometimes we spend years dividing our energies before we find focus; more often, we never find focus.

That society is also “grown up” or “adult”, that we should make those ethical choices collectively and decisively, is an underlying reason why Bloom’s book remains controversial. Beyond the politics of having children read Dead White Males or dismissing the democratization of literary education, there is an assumption that we’re capable of making such decisions; also, an that there is a “we” to speak of. These are not easy in a postmodern age, where positive absolute assertions about culture and society are to be deconstructed and exposed as frauds.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/growing-up-with-harold-bloom/feed/0Critics in Lovehttp://www.culturefeast.com/critics-in-love/
http://www.culturefeast.com/critics-in-love/#respondThu, 21 Oct 2010 17:23:06 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4073This blog isn’t wont to dole out dating advice. Thinking upon my own predicament trying to find romance, however, I realized that there’s something unique and highly peculiar about trying to date a critic. By “critic”, I don’t just mean “film critic”, “food critic”, or any particular occupation. I mean someone who is genuinely critical, […]

]]>This blog isn’t wont to dole out dating advice. Thinking upon my own predicament trying to find romance, however, I realized that there’s something unique and highly peculiar about trying to date a critic.

By “critic”, I don’t just mean “film critic”, “food critic”, or any particular occupation. I mean someone who is genuinely critical, which shouldn’t be confused with that abused term “critical thinker”. Intellectuals may be brave, but they aren’t necessarily critics, for instance.

At his core, a critic is essentially a destructive person. Critics are Shiva. They have no respect for established traditions, boundaries, all the molehills we’ve spend generations accumulating, nor for our mores and accomplishments, including the critic’s own. The true critic is ready to abandon his entire life, in principle, were he to know deep down that it wasn’t the truth.

But what people don’t realize is that the critic’s destruction is never absolute, because the critic destroys the world according to certain standards, that is, particular assumptions and rules about how the destruction and the subsequent genesis should emerge. He maintains these standards because if he didn’t his destruction would be completely unrecognizable, and without recognition, it would be meaningless.

It’s not that people have to recognize those standards: just the opposite, since if the world recognized them then the jig would be up and the world’s destruction wouldn’t be complete. The trick is that the world has to recognize it’s own destruction and it can only do so through some standards, which is what the critic secretly supplies. Critics of critics, sometimes not actually critical themselves, point out these standards in critical articles as flaws in the critic’s argument, as unsubstantiated and underlying assumptions that must be exposed. In reality, the critic has been fully aware of them all along, but he doesn’t voice and defend them the way that a scholar or a journalist would write, “Albeit, the other party has…”, to be followed with, “That notwithstanding, they have…” If he did, the destruction would be exposed for the incomplete and fixed sham that it is.

Thus, the critic’s first dating dilemma: finding someone who can understand and handle that contradiction that the critic bears constantly.

But it’s not enough for the destruction in itself to be complete, or to have the illusion of being complete. For just as unrecognized destruction is meaningless, the standards that give it meaning have to be recognized eventually or else they would be meaningless, too. Yet as we’ve said before, the critic can’t open those standards up to the entire world. So what to do? The critic seeks a romantic partner, just one person (or maybe a few) that can recognize the secret standards and keep them secret. To be a critic in love is to be a villain with a partner in crime.

How is this any different from non-critics, though? Isn’t this need for recognition basically the same principle that any romance follows?

The difference lies in the nature of that need. The great majority of people’s social anxiety stems from a deeply seated fear that, beneath it all, they are outsiders and outcasts, and so they seek a fellow pariah to console them. Their romantic ideal is to “stand apart”, like a city upon a hill. A critic’s social anxiety on the other hand is completely the inverse, because the critic is always worried about being a perpetual insider, since he’s the only one who really understands what rules the world is being destroyed and recreated by. By the same token, the critic is subversive, never revolutionary. Remember that Socrates was murdered by the state for contaminating the minds of the youth, not for leading them in revolt.

Does the critic need another insider to recognize his standards? Yes, because of how recognition works. The word “recognition” comes from the Latin “cogito” (to think, to understand, to comprehend) and the prefix “re”, which implies repetition. Recognition isn’t just sight, it’s the rethinking and recomprehension of something that’s already been thought and comprehended. Namely, the thing outside of us that we comprehend when we recognize it is within us already.

So when the public recognizes the critic’s destruction, it means that they have a little bit of that destruction as well as its structure, its branches and foliage, within them, though they might be unaware of it. Recognizing the seeds of that destruction, however, demands someone else who has them as well. This necessarily means another critic and so another insider precisely because the roots are secret.

Now another difficulty lies in finding a fellow insider. Finding an outsider is easy enough, first because almost everyone is one and second because outsiders’ outside status by definition must be known to all. Insiders, however, are much fewer and, clearly, more secret. We can find outsiders outside the city walls, roaming in the fields. But how do you pick an insider from within the bustle of the market?

Moreover, one insider can’t just approach another and reveal the other’s insider status. When they do, their status is jeopardized because it’s under threat of being made non-exclusive. Thus the second major question with finding love as a critic: how do we approach other critics?

This threat of being revealed adds to the romantic pressure, and the critic who is revealed by another critic either has to unite with them or part ways completely. Herodotus tells us the story of Gyges, servant to the Lycian king, whose master wasn’t convinced that his court recognized the full beauty of his wife. The king leads Gyges behind the door of the royal bedchamber one night so that he can see the queen naked, but when the queen notices Gyges she says that he must either submit to execution or kill the king himself, for no two men can have seen the queen naked. Gyges murders the king, thus becoming king himself, and marries the queen.

Baudelaire once wrote that men seek to be two, but that the man of genius seeks to be one. The critic seeks to be one alright, but he can’t do it without uniting with another. His entire enterprise is based on a grand and secret hypocrisy that doesn’t need validation but rather genuine recognition. The critic lives in a state of sin, perhaps closer than anyone else to it; and so Baudelaire, who recognized that the sweetest love always has a little evil:

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/critics-in-love/feed/0The Military and the Meaning of Sciencehttp://www.culturefeast.com/the-military-and-the-meaning-of-science/
http://www.culturefeast.com/the-military-and-the-meaning-of-science/#respondFri, 08 Oct 2010 15:45:47 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4065The other day, I read an article in the New York Times regarding the American military’s turn to renewable energy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html?_r=1&hp I was wondering whether to think that this is forward-looking or whether it’s the military getting up to speed with reality. Renewable energy advocates have been pushing for increased solar and wind use since […]

I was wondering whether to think that this is forward-looking or whether it’s the military getting up to speed with reality. Renewable energy advocates have been pushing for increased solar and wind use since the 70’s, but on the other hand, if the military really did switch en masse to renewable energy it would be the first mass deployment of the technology in our country. “In our country” of course makes things relative again; Germany’s already getting 16% of their electricity from renewable.

In the sixteenth century, the introduction of (relatively) reliable cast bronze cannons into Europe spurred scholars to think about the physics of free falling projectiles. Hence, Galileo’s famous experiments with canon balls. The aim was to allow gunners to more accurately predict where their ordnance would land, and it was a big catalyst in the development of modern science.

In social sciences, as well, I suspect that the military’s wholesale adoption of behaviorist psychology helped advance and cement that strand’s dominance in American therapy. Note, too, that the IQ test was first devised as a way of filtering French soldiers. Do these count as being “forward thinking”, however?

It depends on our framework. Universal objectivity and rationality is a product of the Enlightenment, when people began to use the term “rational” as a way of thinking that contrasted with knowledge based on faith, superstition, tradition–or, at least, the advocates of rationalism constructed their arguments in such a way that portrayed themselves as thinking in a new way that was opposed to the “old ways”, or the “medieval” ways, which they then identified as faith, superstition, tradition, etc. Humanities scholars have pretty much abandoned the notion of absolute objectivity not just a something feasible but as a principle because they’ve come to see that so-called “universal” rationalism isn’t universal at all, and that what we think of in the West (or as men, or as whites, or as members of the bourgeoisie, or as whatever category, all of which have been challenged) as rational seems supremely insensible to others, and vice versa. Hence, modern science, which is based on rational thinking, is
seen as being relative, as well.

But how can we say that science is relative when the laws of nature are obviously absolute? Newtonian gravity works the same way here as it does in Africa. (Interesting aside, the Soviets actually did try to replace “bourgeois” science with “proletariat” science, but the project was quietly nixed after they realized that it didn’t make any sense.) There are a number of problems with this view. First, there are many bodies of knowledge that are completely unscientific and totally “irrational” that have been effective and universal for centuries; Chinese traditional medicine is one example. Second, what we think of as absolute laws are constantly disproven. Newtonian gravity, for example, doesn’t actually work here the way it does in Africa, because Newton’s model has been surpassed by Einstein’s, which is currently a more accurate description of how gravity works.

That second point can be teased out a bit more. Max Weber, the German father of modern sociology, delivered a lecture that’s since been printed and translated entitled “Science as a Vocation”. He makes the point that we can talk about the meaning of science on the one hand and our reasons for pursuing it on the other, that these are in fact two distinct things, and he says that the meaning of science is for it to be surpassed. So when we come up with a new scientific model, inherent in that model is the assumption–no, the necessity–that it will be superceded. This is a terribly important point, because it implies that the progress of science isn’t tied to the revelation of universal laws, but rather that it has more to do with the structure
of its enterprise. We progress with science because science is defined as being progressive. And how do we measure that progress? By its utility, that is, by how reliably we can use what we’ve discovered to predict how a phenomenon will occur. But those are two distinct links, and the first link, that we should define science as progressive, is arbitrary.

In that sense, science is relative even though it gets at absolutes. Think about the humanities from the same perspective. What is the meaning of learning what happened in Constantinople in 1453? Precisely that: to learn what happened in Constantinople in 1453. The reasons could be manifold: to point to the decline of Christianity in the East, to indicate the end of the Roman Empire, to celebrate the advance of Islam, to identify when the Renaissance started, etc. But the meaning of the event is simply the event itself. The predecessor to modern science, known as “natural philosophy” since all scholarly learning was considered to be “philosophy”, had a similar attitude and didn’t get very far compared to science today, but the comparison is false, because medieval scholars weren’t looking to make progress. That concept was alien to them anyway.

The military has its own science and ethic, but disinterested progress isn’t exclusively at its core. The meaning of finding a new way to power Humvees and tanks isn’t just to put themselves into a position where later they can find an even better way to power Humvees and tanks. The meaning is a bit more like the humanities, in that it’s more immediate, but it’s also scientific in the sense that a new energy source is about finding a “better” energy source. The metric is different, namely dollars and blood, which ultimately is translated by the bureaucracy into just dollars. That they can find this better way assumes, however, that it already exists, since soldiers aren’t scientists. Hence the industrial-military complex that Eisenhower warned against where the military begins to influence what Weber calls the reasons for science, and it buys that influence with R&D budgets, scholarships, etc.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/the-military-and-the-meaning-of-science/feed/0America’s Real Treasurehttp://www.culturefeast.com/americas-real-treasure/
http://www.culturefeast.com/americas-real-treasure/#respondWed, 28 Jul 2010 12:11:59 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4051Here is a commencement speech that every American (and every culture vulture, for that matter) should read. In this important speech retired U.S. Justice David Souter defends the U.S. Supreme Court against charges of “activism” and explains why a simple-minded “fair reading of facts” approach to Constitutional law won’t do. He explains (in a manner […]

Here is a commencement speech that every American (and every culture vulture, for that matter) should read.

In this important speech retired U.S. Justice David Souter defends the U.S. Supreme Court against charges of “activism” and explains why a simple-minded “fair reading of facts” approach to Constitutional law won’t do. He explains (in a manner that even I can understand) why INTERPRETATION of the law is a necessary ingredient of serving the American people since different articles of the Constitution need periodic reviews due to the fact that social values that guide such articles themselves change.

Souter dives into two concrete cases — the Pentagon Papers and Brown vs. the Board of Education decisions. After reading his explanation I now understand why the Justices cannot just read the “law”, look at the “facts”, and decide whether the facts violate the law or not. If that were the case, we would’ve constructed a computer, feed all the law articles into the machine and hit the green START button! Presto! No need for lawyers or judges or law schools.

To understand what Justice Souter is talking about is important for two different but equally crucial reasons:

(1) Some of the issues we discuss day-in day-out and regard as “artistic freedom” or “freedom of speech” issues are actually serious Constitutional issues at heart. Without arriving at a correct interpretation of such cases we cannot resolve the related artistic or cultural issues either.

(2) These very same issues have bearing on other discussions going on around world. In many other countries the judges are attacked with similar accusations of “activism” by all kinds of governments who would rather end the principle of “separation of powers” and rule their countries as they wish through sheer executive fiat.

Thus for the future of DEMOCRACY at a global scale we again need to understand the non-mechanical nature of Constitutional Law interpretation and the great care, erudition, patience it requires to come up with a true “fair and balanced” resolution of these hot issues.

Stepping back and looking at the the brilliant contributions of scholars like Justice Souter makes me say that this the real treasure of America. The real strength, the Real Light and Promise of this great land is not its monetary treasures or material wonders and possessions but the sharp and compassionate minds of cultural beacons like Justice Souter. I offer my heartfelt thanks to him for his guidance and wisdom.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/americas-real-treasure/feed/0Loneliness of Learninghttp://www.culturefeast.com/loneliness-of-learning/
http://www.culturefeast.com/loneliness-of-learning/#respondTue, 20 Jul 2010 21:05:20 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=4034I’m at a seaside resort somewhere in the Aegean. I’ve just visited the Temple of Apollo today. Built 2,700 years ago, the temple was surrounded by stone blocks full of inscriptions in classical Greek, which of course I cannot read. I kicked myself why I haven’t devoted the time in the past to learn this […]

I’m at a seaside resort somewhere in the Aegean. I’ve just visited the Temple of Apollo today. Built 2,700 years ago, the temple was surrounded by stone blocks full of inscriptions in classical Greek, which of course I cannot read. I kicked myself why I haven’t devoted the time in the past to learn this ancient language. How wonderful it would’ve been to read these ancient “hardcover books” chiseled into granite.

While ruminating about my self-inflicted misfortune, my thoughts shifted to the loneliness of learning.

Yes, I felt lonely since I couldn’t share my sense of loss (not knowing Greek) with anyone else. Who cares about classical Greek anymore? Not anyone I know. This is the age of iPod, iPad, and checking your text messages five times a minute, isn’t it?

But I realized that even if we lived tens of thousands of years ago, learning would still be a very lonely enterprise, for 2 reasons.

(1) Learning means leaving where you are, leaving the safe confines of your home, and sailing for someplace you’ve never been before. So by definition, you end up in territory that you know nothing about. You don’t have any friends there. No family. On the contrary, the inhabitants of the new domain usually don’t want you there. But by sheer persistence you shoulder your way in. The act of learning is exhilarating since it feels like taking up wings and being reborn. But the cost is your new loneliness. This is the PULL factor at work.

(2) Learning means you leave behind the people with whom you’ve shared almost everything and become a stranger to them, in tiny steps. This is the PUSH factor of loneliness. You literally end up with having no time for your loved ones since reading, writing, learning takes so much time. Famous authors dedicate their books to their families for a very good reason — they know they’ve hurt them by leaving them alone for all those hours, days, and years that it took them to write that book.

So is learning an act of heroism in the face of insurmountable obstacles or a futile act of self-aggrandizement? I believe it is both. I’ll return to this topic soon. What I know is, the heroes are as lonely as the fools, thanks to the built-in contradictions of the learning process.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/loneliness-of-learning/feed/0The Poetic Voice of Generation Mehttp://www.culturefeast.com/the-poetic-voice-of-generation-me/
http://www.culturefeast.com/the-poetic-voice-of-generation-me/#respondTue, 13 Jul 2010 13:11:29 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=3944Poets from around the world—from Vietnam and the Netherlands and Brazil and Canada, quite different from one another, coming from quite distinct literary traditions—were part of the same conversation. They were trying to invent in language, trying to say what life was like for them, to bear witness to it, to find fresh ways of […]

Poets from around the world—from Vietnam and the Netherlands and Brazil and Canada, quite different from one another, coming from quite distinct literary traditions—were part of the same conversation. They were trying to invent in language, trying to say what life was like for them, to bear witness to it, to find fresh ways of embodying the experiences of thinking and feeling and living among others. That was what I was suddenly hearing in Beijing—that familiar, exhilarating sound, not so much of poetry, but of the power of the project of poetry. –Robert Haas, “Two Poets” (The Believer, June 2010)

Poets speak with voices that are not just their own, but that also carry the sound of their generation. Allen Ginsberg, Bob Dylan, and the other beat poets of the 1950’s and 60’s remain perhaps the most famous American examples in living memory of this aspect of the “project of poetry”, and though the extreme sexual and narcotic liberation embodied by a poem like Howl can never truthfully be said to represent an entire generation, in their free flowing verses an entire new wave of youth found its expression and definition.

Perhaps something similar is occurring in China today, as Robert Haas demonstrates in his article “Two Poets” in last month’s issue of The Believer. Haas interviewed Yu Jian and Xi Chuan, two leading lights in China’s so-called New Generation of poets born in the wake of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and he observes that in Beijing right now poets are abuzz with “trying to invent language, trying to say what life was like for them, to bear witness to it, to find fresh ways of embodying the experiences of thinking and feeling and living among others”. To say “what life [is] like” is almost by definition something social, a project that depends not only on the poet but the streets she walks on and he people that line it. Moreover, as each poet strives for this goal their voices rise in cacophony that slips in and out of harmony, but with the same rhythms that characterize their group since the instruments themselves all come from the same street vendors, businessmen, and homeless orphans. Thus emerges the voice of their generation.

All this has makes one wonder, what is the voice of today’s youth, the Generation Me born into the Internet and broadband revolutions? The answer eludes us, since the traditional sources that we might first look to have all disappeared or dried up. Typing, texting, and browsing have replaced writing and reading as we knew them and the value placed on genuine literacy and the long attention spans needed to cultivate a voice is at an all time low. Music has become dominated by corporate-controlled mega-personas while thriving yuppie and booze-fueled indie scenes can hardly be thought of as the heirs to decimated folk and home traditions. Like Archean bacteria, we thrive isolated in dark caves lit by the phosphorescent glow of our immense flat panels; the streets hum dead with the whir and kick starts of central air conditioning units.

What occurred to me, however, is that the text, the YouTube clip, the Ke$ha beat, and the air conditioner’s hum are precisely the stuff that fill up our lives, and that’s the stuff of our generation’s poetic voice. If we don’t have each other then we should adopt, modify, and sing with the voices that News Corp. and Hollywood lend us. It’s a refreshingly prosaic conclusion that feels authentic in our socially awkward times, where we’d rather arrange a date by text than call the person and dare face their real sound.

With that in mind, I began to write poems that have these familiar voices. Here’s one:

Newscaster

oil is gushing into the gulf at 60,000 barrels per day
according to representatives two relief wells are
on their
way
my husband reports I’ve never looked so good
as when I put this cream in my hair
it’s a relief
and I will take his alleged hand
lead him to the beach where
crews have reported tarballs have washed up
where the gulls still caw
I’ll bathe him and
wash my hair every morning
the oil brings out the oil in the follicles rejuvenating roots
giving a lustrous shine
so our sponsors say
and I will be your sponsor
I will look thousands of barrels good for you any day

]]>A masterpiece by Martin Scorsese on the level of Taxi Driver and Goodfellas.

The year is 1954. U.S. Marshal Edward “Teddy” Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio in his usual pedal-to-the-metal best) heads for the psychiatric-jail on Shutter Island to investigate the case of a missing patient/criminal, Rachel Solando. Accompanying him is his junior partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo).

The mental hospital, which is actually a maximum-security jail protected by an army of smug and hard-core guards, is led by Dr. John Cawley, the head psychiatrist — acted with great control and restraint by Ben Kingsley.

Daniels has some baggage: he was one of the American servicemen who entered the Dachau extermination camp during the liberation of Germany. The things that he saw and did at Dachau left their indelible marks on him.

Then there’s the memory of his lovely wife Dolores Chanal (played by lovely Michelle Williams of Brokeback Mountain who never disappoints)… Memory of a fire that destroyed a family…

This is a film about the tenuous nature of personal identity and the amazing powers of the mind to create alternative realities, each as real as the other one. Or as Bill Clinton once said: it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

What starts out as a straight-forward missing-person investigation by two G-suits slowly changes shape and turns into a man’s desperate struggle to maintain his own sanity, while trying to assess the sanity of all those around him. What a screenplay! Kudos for the writer Laeta Kalogridis who adopted Dennis Lehane’s novel of the same name.

Scorsese, who at this point in his career have of course mastered the visual language of motion pictures, opens up the first scene with a statement as bold as the first sequence of the Jaws, and the tension never lets up, partly thanks to the arresting musical score.

Jackie Earl Haley, one of those most-under-acknowledged but great actors like Barry Pepper (61*) and Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock), again treats us to a great psychological feast, bringing to life a demented patient.

While we are talking about supporting roles, I must also mention John Carroll Lynch. If you thought playing the softie honey-of-a-husband in Fargo was the best he could do, think again. See how he breathes menacing life into Deputy Warden McPherson. The man has a range, clearly.

The resolution of the film does not turn out to be what we secretly hope it’d be. There’s a certain sense of letdown at the concluding last scene, perhaps because the lead role belongs to a good-looking baby-face guy like DiCaprio who always plays the “hero.” So perhaps that’s a casting issue that we have to deal with as audience.

Yet, deep down below, we also know that that’s exactly how it’d turn out in real life. And that explains why the hair on our necks rise when the final shock is delivered without flinching. Scorsese does not pull any punches there.

A dark downer painted in bruising black, lightning blue and thunder gray. Not a movie to watch on a sunny Saturday surrounded by your kids, family, and fresh pop-corn. But if you like psychological thrillers, this is a new American Classic that will stand the test of time like Cape Fear. Recommended.

]]>http://www.culturefeast.com/movie-review-shutter-island-2010-a-psychological-thriller-masterpiece/feed/0Boundaries and Identity in the Age of Globalizationhttp://www.culturefeast.com/boundaries-and-identity-in-the-age-of-globalization/
http://www.culturefeast.com/boundaries-and-identity-in-the-age-of-globalization/#respondSun, 04 Jul 2010 21:45:25 +0000http://www.culturefeast.com/?p=3945Boundaries are a must to preserve identity. Individuals need a boundary. And so do nations, football fans, and lovers. There are 2 ways in which a boundary can be violated: 1) Non-members cross over the boundary and enter the “home domain.” 2) The coordinates of the boundary are changed. Or a mixture of both. Before […]

]]>Boundaries are a must to preserve identity. Individuals need a boundary. And so do nations, football fans, and lovers.

There are 2 ways in which a boundary can be violated: 1) Non-members cross over the boundary and enter the “home domain.” 2) The coordinates of the boundary are changed. Or a mixture of both.

Before American Civil War, slave trade kept bringing in non-members until the boundaries of “citizens” burst open (Case I). Then the South tried to redefine the physical borders (Case II) which led to Civil War.

I read the story of a Lebanese shop keeper in Germany who hanged a huge German flag to celebrate Germany’s Soccer Cup victory and… the flag was burnt and torn down by leftists who thought the man had no “right” to celebrate like a “true German.” The Lebanese shop owner was regarded as a non-member passing for a member. An “Uncle Tom” situation perhaps? Depends on who you ask…

And here is the crisis: this is the age of Globalization. People intermarry. We all travel from one corner of the world to the other, work, and sometimes settle down as well. The group, ethnic, and national boundaries are violated constantly.

The only solution left to remain who we think we are is to live according to an inner identification with an invisible boundary, as summarized by the term “Spirituality.” Yet in this age of Mega Churches, spirituality has also become a membership- and boundary-defining business in a hurry, which brings us back to square one — how are we going to maintain our identity when either the borders are changing constantly or we are shifted back and forth across those boundaries due to globalization?

Psychiatry and law enforcement are the true professions of the future.